The question about whether nuclear power makes a good green option has always been a fought one to answer, and the recent tragedy in Japan certainly doesn’t make it any easier for those on the pro side of the argument. But even without disasters, which thankfully have been few in number, there are still some serious environmental issues that need to be examined.

It’s Not All About Emissions
The first argument that is usually brought up in favour of nuclear power generation is that it is essentially emission-free. At the time of generation, that is clearly true, and the technology has reached the point where containment of anything radioactive is pretty sound too. Bear in mind what it took to damage the facility in Japan, and the age of that technology. The engineering of these plants is undeniably impressive.

While reducing the emissions from power generation is certainly a positive thing for the environment, the fact remains that these nuclear reactors still generate waste, and extremely hazardous waste at that. Some of it can be reprocessed, but eventually there are sealed canisters of nuclear waste that will remain highly radioactive for many years, and needs to be stored somewhere.

Continuing to ignore the nuclear waste issue is essentially trading the immediate emissions problem for what could potentially be a much more serious radioactive waste issue in the future. Our children and grandchildren will need to clean up our mess.

Safety and Security
Inevitably, a disaster like the one in Japan will call into question the safety of nuclear power plants. But the issue is much broader than natural disasters. Even when the risk of earthquakes and/or tsunami is lower, there is often the potential for other kinds of extreme conditions like tornadoes. While good engineering can reduce the risks, the one-in-a-thousand event, like the massive tsunami in Japan, is always a possibility.

In addition to natural disasters, nuclear plants can also fail because of human error (Chernobyl) or be subject to attack by terrorists or during times of war. An attack on a conventional power station disrupts life for those depending on the electricity, and, depending on the fuel, might have short term impact on the air quality, but the longer term effects to the environment are not that serious. The same cannot be said for nuclear power stations. The area around the Chernobyl reactor is still contaminated today, 25 years after the accident.

Alternatives
It is easy to talk about not using nuclear energy, but the fact is that it is a very efficient source of electricity in terms of power per square foot of land. Greener alternatives, such as solar, wind or wave energy need much more space devoted to them today to get anything like the same power. The output from a nuclear power station is also more controllable. It can be increased or decreased to match demand, and it can operate 24/7, and in most weather conditions.

Perhaps the answer to alternative energy sources is to think outside the box a little. Move away from the conventional producer-consumer model where we have a small number of generating facilities feeding a grid that a large number of consumers pull from. We have large areas that we can turn into dual use facilities.

In addition to the environmental benefits, having the power generation distributed so widely also adds protection against disruption from natural disasters, accidents or attacks.

Solar Parking Lots

One of the best ideas I have seen is to add large solar arrays over open air parking lots, or on the roof levels of multi-story parking structures. These large open spaces are ideal for collecting sunlight, and the panels actually provide shade for the parked cars, helping to keep them cool as well as protecting them from the sun’s damaging UV rays. The photo on the right is an installation at Kyocera’s San Diego facility, from EnvisionSolar.

Buildings
Large warehouses, office complexes and even shopping malls could easily house solar arrays on their roofs. High rise towers could incorporate solar panels into their outer glass coverings. New buildings, whether commercial or domestic, should be required to include solar panels where there is sufficient sunlight for this to make sense.

Wind & Wave
Much harder to distribute are wind and wave generation systems. While small wind turbines for use in urban environments have been created, there is still much work to do here before it is practical to have one on every house, or even on every commercial building. Perhaps a chimney mounted wind turbine could become a new use for the chimney on homes in places like California where having a fire is increasingly restricted to protect air quality.

Wave power could be utilized on docks and piers to try to harvest some of the energy from the sea. Obviously, the number of locations for this is much more limited than even those for wind power.

Power Stations
Distributing the generation does not mean we cannot also build larger power generation facilities, like the large solar facilities being built in desert spaces of California and northern Africa. Or wind farms on the hilltops, sharing the land with cattle or crops.

There are some forms of green energy that make more sense in a centralized location than distributed too. Hydro-electric and geo-thermal being two examples that need to be located near the natural resource they depend on.

Conclusions
While nuclear power looks like a quick fix to the emissions problem that coal, oil and even to some extent, gas power stations suffer from, the long term impact of spent fuel and the building materials themselves when the reactor needs to be decommissioned, make any claims for it being a planet-friendly solution hard to believe.

Contrary to what pro-nuclear power generating companies would have people believe, the alternative energy sources are viable. They just need to be integrated into our society in a different, distributed way.

Posted in Energy, Global Warming | Comment RSS
Respond | Trackback |